Kerala HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To MLA Rahul Mamkootathil, Orders Surrender Of Mobile Phone
Pranav B Prem
The Kerala High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a case alleging rape, criminal intimidation, and forced miscarriage. The order was passed by Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath on February 12, 2026, while allowing the pre-arrest bail application subject to strict conditions, including surrender of the applicant’s mobile phone and cooperation with the investigation.
The applicant, aged 36, is the first accused in Crime No. 1750/2025 of Nemom Police Station, later re-registered by the Crime Branch. The offences alleged against him include Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(h), 64(2)(m), 89, 115(2) and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, as well as Section 66E of the Information Technology Act.
According to the prosecution, the applicant developed a relationship with the de facto complainant, a journalist, after contacting her through social media. It was alleged that he subjected her to repeated sexual intercourse, recorded her private visuals, and coerced her into terminating her pregnancy through threats and intimidation. The case was initially registered on the basis of a complaint submitted to the Chief Minister and later transferred to the Crime Branch, where a Special Investigation Team was constituted. The Sessions Court had earlier rejected the applicant’s plea for pre-arrest bail, though the co-accused was granted such relief.
Before the High Court, the applicant contended that the allegations stemmed from a consensual relationship between two adults and that the complaint was politically motivated. It was also argued that the complainant had voluntarily consumed abortion pills, and therefore the offence of causing miscarriage without consent was not attracted.
Opposing the plea, the prosecution submitted that the allegations were grave and custodial interrogation was necessary, particularly for recovery of the mobile phone used to record the alleged videos and for conducting a potency test. It was further contended that the applicant, being a sitting MLA, could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if granted pre-arrest bail.
After considering the rival submissions and the materials on record, the Court examined the nature of the relationship between the parties. The Court noted that the complainant herself had admitted to having an intimate relationship with the applicant and to engaging in consensual sexual intercourse on certain occasions. The Court observed that the incidents alleged as rape must be assessed in the overall context of the relationship. It held that the circumstances and communications between the parties prima facie indicated a consensual relationship, though the matter would ultimately be decided at trial.
Referring to recent Supreme Court judgments, the Court noted that not every failed consensual relationship can be treated as rape and cautioned against converting personal disputes into criminal prosecutions for such serious offences.
On the allegation of forced miscarriage, the Court observed that the complainant had admittedly consumed abortion pills supplied by the co-accused. The available communications suggested that she had requested the pills herself, though the question of whether such consent was obtained through coercion would have to be determined during trial. The Court also rejected the prosecution’s reliance on other FIRs registered against the applicant, noting that those cases were filed after the present one and could not be treated as criminal antecedents for deciding the bail plea.
As regards the requirement of custodial interrogation, the Court held that “limited custody” or “deemed custody” would be sufficient to facilitate the investigation, including recovery of the mobile phone, in line with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sushila Aggarwal.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application and directed the applicant to appear before the investigating officer on 16 February 2026, surrender his mobile phone, and cooperate with interrogation. He was further directed not to contact the complainant or witnesses, not to leave Kerala without permission, and to comply with other conditions imposed by the Court. With these directions, the anticipatory bail application was allowed.
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, Maheswar P., T.P. Aravind, and Akshara S.
Respondent: Adv T.A. Shaji (DGP), Advocates V. John Sebastian Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Geethu T.A., Mary Greeshma, Liz Johny, Krishnapriya Sreekumar, Abhijith P.S., and Devika Manoj
Cause Title: Rahul B.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: Bail Appl. 14427/2025
Coram: Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath
